DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD
S
2 NAVY ANNE
X
WASHINGTON DC 20370-510
0
BJG
Docket No: 3984-01
21 June 2001
This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the
provisions of title 10 of the United States Code, section 1552.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive
session, considered your application on 20 June 2001. Your allegations of error and injustice
were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the
proceedings of this Board. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your
application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and
applicable statutes, regulations and policies.
the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated
11 May 2001, a copy of which is attached. They also considered your rebuttal letter dated
24 May 2001 with enclosure.
In addition, the Board considered the report of
After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the
evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or
injustice. In this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained
in the report of the PERB. Despite your assertion that the reviewing officer did not counsel
you in 1989, they were unable to find that he erred in stating that he had discussed his
opinions and the contested comments with you.
senior’s letter of 23 May 2001 does not state that you were not permitted to discuss the
reviewing officer’s appraisal with him; it merely states that the reporting senior counseled
you that such a discussion would be useless. In view of the above, your application has been
denied. The names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.
In this regard, they noted that the reporting
,
It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such that favorable action cannot be
taken. You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decision upon submission of new
and material evidence or other matter not previously considered by the Board. In this
regard, it is important to keep in mind that a presumption of regularity attaches to all official
records. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the
burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or
injustice.
Sincerely,
W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director
Enclosure
DEPARTMENT OF THE
NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
3280RUSSELL ROA
D
QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22 134-5 10
3
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF
NAVAL RECORDS
Subj:
Ref:
(PERB)
MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD
ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF MAJOR
USMC
(a) Maj
(b)
MC0
P1610.7C
DD Form 149 of 27 Feb 01
w/Ch 1-4
Per
1.
with three members present,
MC0
1610.11C, the Performance
Evalu.ation Review Board,
met on 9 May 2001 to consider Major
A change to the
petition contained in reference (a).
Reviewing Officer's Certification on his fitness report for the
period 880611 to 890131 (CH) was requested.
Reference (b) is
the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the
report.
The petitioner indicates that the Reviewing Officer's
2.
markings and comments were
and that the Reviewing Officer's Certification should be changed
to reflect a mark in block three vice block four.
To support
his appeal,
Officer of
the petitioner furnishes a letter from the Reviewing
reco
"substantively inaccurate and unjust"
USMC(Ret) .
In its proceedings, the PERB concluded that the report is
3.
both administratively correct and procedurally complete as
written and filed.
The following is offered as relevant:
a.
The Board observes that when (then) Lieutenant Colonel
ccomplished his review of the challenged fitness he did
so in a conscious and knowing manner.
four in the Reviewing Officer's Certification was not only a
deliberate action, but also one that was succinctly justified
his own remarks.
was his testament that he had discussed this matter with the
petitioner.
Further solidifying his opinion
His election of block
at the time
’
by
b.
While the endorsements on the petitioner's Request for
Augmentation are enthusiastic and supportive, they do not
somehow question the validity of the challenged fitness report.
Both the augmentation request and the fitness report are
Subj:
MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF MAJOR
SMC
separate and unrelated administrative actions, generated for
entirely different purposes.
One is not dependent on the other.
C .
In the situation at issue,
the Reviewing Officer has
\\ in retrospect and upon reconsideration..." he was
Although
indicated that
wrong by disagreeing with the Item 15 distribution.
previously held opinions may waver and change with time,
judgmental reflections after the fact,
failure of selection,
submitted in a timely manner.
factual justification warranting the requested action; nor do
they find that the Reviewing Officer's recollection some 12
years after the fact would be more vivid than as he recorded it
at the time
should not be used to change a report
or those motivated by a
.
In this regard,
the PERB finds no
The Board's opinion,
4.
vote, is that the contested fitness report, as
should remain a part o
based on deliberation and secret ballot
confiqured,
official military record.
c
3.
The case is forwarded for final action.
Marine Corps
Colonel,
Deputy Director
Personnel Management Division
Manpower and Reserve Affairs
Department
By direction of the Commandant
of the Marine Corps
2
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07545-01
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 20 September 2001, a copy of which is attached. applies Report A - 971122 to 980608 (CD) - Reference (c) Report B - 980609 to 980731 (DC) - Reference (d) Report C -...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 05445-01
Documentary material considered by the Board ,of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your consisted naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 10 July 2001, a copy of which is attached. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 05450-01
In addition, the Board considered the report of (HQMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), the Headquarters Marine Corps dated 10 July 2001, a copy of which. VIRGINIA 221 34-510 3 Y IN REPLY REFER TO: 1610 MMER/PERB 0 1 JUL AA' MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS Subj: Ref: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD SORY OPINI (PERB) CATION IN THE CASE OF MAJOR USMC DD Form 149 of 27 Apr 01 (c) MC0 P1610.7E w/Ch l-2 Per 1. with three...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 04197-02
Report A - 990827 to 991231 (AN). Report C - 000630 to 001231 (AN). Evaluation Review Board, request for May 2002 to consider Staff removal of his fitness report for the period 010101 to 010209 Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive (CH).
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 05821-01
(?O/ MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS Subj: Ref: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF MAJOR (PERB) R - I USMC ._ (b) MC0 P1610.7D DD Form 149 of 3 May 01 w/Ch l-4 Per MC0 1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, 1. with three members present, Majo the fitness report for the period 970801 to 980519 (CH) was requested. Reference (a) requested an advisory opinion in the case...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07535-01
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed removal of the contested fitness reports for 1 January to 16 June 1996 and 2 August to 31 December 1996. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 20 September 2001, a copy of which is attached. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 06693-01
At the outset, the board observes that Colone was the proper Reporting Senior for Report A (so acknow when the petitioner si that Lieutenant Colone Section B marks and Section C comments has absolutely no grounding in fact. Report B was completed a little over two months after the end of ased his observation PI he still had daily 2 Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF MAJOR USMC the reporting period is not...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08086-02
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modification of the contested fitness report for 29 December 1992 to 26 April 1993 by removing the last sentence of the reviewing officer’s comments. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board 2002, a copy of which is attached. VIRGINIA 22 ROAD 134.6 103 IN REPLY REFER To: 1610 MMER/PERB SEP 1 2 2002 MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 06721-00
t for the period 960914 to 970710 (TR) was Removal of Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive requested. evidenced in the final paragraph of enclosure (6) to reference REPORTING SENIORS HERE WILL BE (a) (i.e., "FITNESS REPORTS. THE FITNESS REPORTS.").
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08366-02
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modification of your fitness report for 18 April to 1 September 1998 by removing the last two sentences from the reviewing officer ’s comments. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 November 2002. Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISOR SERGEAN HE CASE OF STAFF USMC despite the difficulties...